Contractual rights and obligations are generally transferable from death, but not in the case of a delectus personae or an explicit or tacit agreement of the other, in the event that the termination of the contract is left to the executor of the estate of the deceased. In the absence of such an election by the parties, explicitly or implicitly, the Tribunal merely assigns to the contract an applicable right. Traditionally, this is done on the basis of an alleged intent that is fictitiously attributed to the parties, but the more modern approach is to objectively determine the right just right by referring to the actual links between the agreement and the various relevant legal systems. In other words, the court chooses the legal system “with which the transaction has its closest and most real connection.” [Citation required] As a general rule, this is the law of the country where the contract was concluded or signed (lex loci contractus) or, if the service is to be put out to competition in another country, the law of that country (lex loci solutionis). It was argued that, in view of modern methods of communication and international trade, the locus celebrate contractus decreases in the attribution of existing legislation. However, it is important to note that, in its correct choice of law, the court is not limited by rigid rules and may, in appropriate cases, confer on the treaty other legislation in force. Defective performance Damages for failure to perform a contractual agreement are measured by calculating the difference in value between what is the subject of an actual call for tenders and what is necessary under the contract. If the service offered is either worthless or unsuitable for the purpose set out in the contract, the appropriate measure of the damage is the sum necessary to remedy the defect. If a defect can be easily repaired by repair, the measure of the damage is the price of the repairs made. The integration aspect of the probation rule therefore defines “the limits of the treaty”.  The parties have “integrated” their negotiations into a single document that should be seen as a complete and definitive expression of their will: an “exclusive monument” of their agreement.
 The purpose of this rule is to prevent a party from asserting claims other than those provided for in the act. In Le Riche v Hamman, for example, Hamman filed a complaint for passing on a Victory Hill mistakenly sold to the Rich. Le Riche relied on oratorical evidence, but the rule of parol evidence states that the court first considers the ordinary meaning of the contract. Since it was clear and unequivocal and he did not refer to Victory Hill in his description of the country, Le Riche did not succeed. Mental incapacity If a party does not understand the nature and consequences of the treaty at the time of its creation, it is considered mentally incapable. A distinction should be made between persons found to have no jurisdiction by a court and a designated guardian, and persons who are mentally incompetent and who have not been convicted in this way. A person declared incompasable in legal proceedings is not able to enter into a contract with another person. Such a person is not in a position to approve the contract, as the Tribunal found that he or she did not understand the obligations and effects of the contract. A contract concluded by such a person is not concluded and has no legal effect.
Neither party can be legally bound to respect or comply with the contractual conditions. If there has been no conviction of insanity, a contract concluded by a mentally handicapped person is questionable by him. Remedies for infringement are aimed at the performance, termination or cancellation of a contract. Full performance is the natural cause of termination of a contract….